Public Interest Groups Speak Out About Next Week's Secret Meeting In Hollywood To Negotiate TPP (Think International SOPA)

from the speak-up dept

We've been pointing out all week that the anti-SOPA folks who just discovered ACTA shouldn't stop there, but should pay close attention to what's happening with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). That's the agreement that the entertainment industry is betting on to get SOPA-like laws introduced around the globe. And, if you thought that ACTA was negotiated in secret, you haven't seen anything. Rather than learn their lesson from the excessive and damaging secrecy around ACTA, it appears that the USTR has decided that the lesson to learn is "we can be as secret as we want... and we still win." Of course, this seriously underestimates the mood of the public towards backroom deals on IP laws that will benefit a few large industries at the expense of the public (in a big, big way).

To show just how ridiculous this is, it has been leaked out that next week there will be a negotiation over TPP. Unlike ACTA, where at least the negotiators would admit where and when negotiations were happening (though, not always with much time for others to get there in time), the TPP negotiations are kept entirely in the dark from the public. However, it has leaked out that the next negotiation is happening from January 31st through February 4th... in West Hollywood (where else?). A bunch of public interest groups are speaking out against this super secret process, and will be hosting an event in LA the day before these negotiations, to educate people on just how bad TPP is. If you're in the area, it'll be worth attending (details at the link above).

Keep on Wailin' on 'em

Here's hoping the ball of active participation by the public in issues that heavily affect the public keeps on rolling. I'd love to have all of extremely-powerful-and-drunk-on-it folks wake up to realize that the "idiot" public is no longer so idiotic.

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is, never get involved in a corporate war in America! But only slightly less well known is this: never go in against Hollywood when freedom is on the line! AHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHA—" *thunk*

OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing

Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament quit his role as rapporteur saying:

”I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.”

“As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.”

Re: OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing

I had to look it up, so in case anybody else would need to:Rapporteur (derived from French) is used in international and European legal and political contexts to refer to a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation.

What I don't get

Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but being a sane person, I tend to believe that the MPAA's and RIAA's of the world are doing what they genuinely feel is right for their constituents.

So what I don't get is why all the secrecy? I mean if I'm doing , and I truly believe that it's in the best interest of those I represent, I'm not going to be all that secretive about the process. Sure I may be a little under-handed about not getting everyone at the table because I'd like to keep the discussions one-sided, but straight-up cloak-and-dagger secrecy?

That implies to me that the sponsors of this type of thing are either 1) clinically mentally unstable (of the paranoid schizophrenia type) or 2) they are completely aware that what they are doing is morally wrong.

Re: What I don't get

Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but being a sane person, I tend to believe that the MPAA's and RIAA's of the world are doing what they genuinely feel is right for their constituents

I believe you are correct, but the question is who are these constituents they represent? It has been shown time and time again that those they claim to represent (content creators) are not the ones that benefit from their ever expanding purchase of legislation. The true constituents that benefit from these things are the legacy gatekeepers who are obsessed with controlling distribution to keep from having to change a dead business model. It's only a conspiracy theory if it doesn't represent reality.

Re: What I don't get

Re: What I don't get

These bureaucracies always follow who is in power. Once they realize their current masters no longer have the power, the internet (democracy) does, they will come begging, just praying they keep their jobs.

A while back i pointed out, the harder they push the more light would be shined on these agreements. With the way that they are pushing these forward, with no regard for what is right and wrong or public opinion, is just showing the public at large how corrupt they are. This is going to snowball into something much larger than a simple protest against SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the TPP.

Are they really in the public's interest?

I love the idea that the folks on the side of Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware are also "public interest", but the folks on the side of Big Content are just evil.

The EFF is funded by Google's charity. I'm sure many of these so called "public interest" groups are also heavily funded by copyright haters.

The fact is that the public is filled with people who are glad that copyright protects their creations. They may be indifferent about actually paying for other people's works, but they love the fact that the law is on their side when they create something.

The CC license or any open source license get their strength
from copyright.

That's why I say people like me are really working in the public's interest. And this is why reputable newspapers look for neutral descriptions to avoid loaded phrases like 'public interest.'

The folks who hate copyright and pay for this astroturfing are the ones who hate to give any more to creators.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Re: Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

People like you are working for Big Content. Just because we happen to be real people who are innovating and happen to agree with the EFF's stance or just because Google also agrees doesn't make these "public interest groups" astroturfing. It means that the public is upset about the privileges that Big Content has enjoyed and abused for so long. The public isn't happy that copyright is around for 150 years after death. Big Content is. Sure you can find anecdotal evidence of a couple people that are happy with it, but the evidence points to the fact that society is fed up with it. Piracy is only a part of that evidence. The public outcries against SOPA only showed that Big Content had overextended itself too far. There is a lot of evidence to show that, well...you're just full of bullshit.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Bob,

You say you are working in the public interest, but your definition of public and my definition are quite dissimilar. Following a meme from an above thread, I do not think it means what you think it means. I, for one, go back to this pesky document that you and your ilk absolutely hate. It is called the US Constitution.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Bob, I happen to be a creator, and I love copyright when it benefits the creator. I don't really see the point of protecting something 70 years after I'm dead. Perhaps it would be in the public interest to come up with reasonable copyright law that we can all respect.

At what point does Big Content say "Enough, we have plenty of incentive to create and profit from our work." My guess is that will never happen.

And there's no such thing as Big Search or Big Piracy, and I'm not sure what Big Hardware is or what it has to do with this.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Says the guy who claims that everything's a paywall and that democracy is only for him when he wants it to be.

There are a broad spectrum of opinions about IP laws: however, the MAFIAA and the IFPI have done more to harm that in the public eye than Google and TPB could in decades.

When people fell entitled to money they shouldn't and take it, that's theft. That's happened in Canada for sure, and is winding its way through a number of other countries (through a "you must be a criminal" tax on blank media).

Moreover, the EFF gets some money from Google, but it also gets money from the Bill Gates' Foundation, some from Apple and some from a lot of other companies. I'm pretty sure that all of Silicon Valley isn't the hive of scum and villainy you assume it to be.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Your right "Big Content" isn't evil. They can't figure out how to take advantage of the most incredible technological innovation mankind has ever invented. The internet connects EVERY FUCKING HUMAN ON THE PLANET!

That's why I'm voting for "Little Content"...

Maybe jerboa content...

Or content that involves the intricacies or why I can't find my keys in the morning...

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

Google made its money and gained its power by supplying a superior product and not relying on government protection. Google relied entirely on the market (i.e. giving the customer what they want).

For the last thirty years Hollywood has made its money by asking the government to protect and enforce its business model. They have no confidence in their product to they use force to get people to buy it. They gave up on the market and demanded a government enforced (and, therefore, artificial) monopoly.

Re: Are they really in the public's interest?

The EFF is funded by Google's charity.

The EFF predates Google by nearly a decade. The EFF was founded in 1990, Google in 1998.

Furthermore, the EFF's Annual Report (PDF) lists a number of companies and foundations that gave them money (on page 15). Google is not among them. In fact, not a single search engine is, as far as I can tell.

Their funding sources, from greatest to least, are: membership income; foundation grants; individual major donations; corporate contributions; and litigation. (There are more, but these are the only sources that gave the EFF more than $100,000.) Total corporate contributions account for less than 15% of the EFF's funding.

The idea that the EFF is a "front" for Google (or any other "Big Search" company) is an outright, bald-faced lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: Re: Re: The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately

USTR Out Of Control

The USTR appears to have shaken off all political control and any accountability to the public. It is now the very embodiment of "regulatory capture". Which minister is supposed to be in charge of the USTR? How about holding the minister accountable? How about some very public sackings of senior USTR bureaucrats?

So if the agreement is totally being negotiated in secret, how do you know it's not the international version of Wyden's OPEN Act? How do you even have any idea of what it says? Your Keystone Kops hysterics are certainly entertaining. You have no idea what is says, but by God your against it. Try a thicker tinfoil hat you fucking wing nut.

Rather than learn their lesson from the excessive and damaging secrecy around ACTA, it appears that the USTR has decided that the lesson to learn is "we can be as secret as we want... and we still win."

Damaging secrecy? Damaging to whom? Not to them, since they got Obama to sign ACTA, and that's really all that matters to them. The last part of the line is absolutely correct. What they learned is that if you keep the details as secret as possible, you head off much of the public outcry and it's much easier to get governments to illegally sign.

There's your under 35 voters call to arms - "don't mess with my anime". This is a perfect example how these laws intend to control all creative content by not allowing "just anyone" to take part in creation. They want us to be couch potatoes.

You Tube's biggest threat is it allows anyone to be creators. If I were given a choice between 100,000 videos that people voluntarly make to share vs. Hollywood's 10 block busters - I'll take You Tube. I doubt if I'm alone in that decision.

I wonder if THIS is really it?

You may have nailed it.

Sure IP protection is part of it... but maybe it's really about creation. The Internet has become the distribution channel that anyone can utilize for virtually pennies. (probably 100% free if you tried hard enough).

It may not be a truly concerted effort, but listen to how media "controllers" have tried to stem their "members" from using Twitter and keeping reporters from "blogging" (See MLB, NFL, Reuters, AP, etc).

The democratization of publication is the real threat. Performers making (real) money without the need for record contracts or multi-million dollar tours / ad campaigns - wow - if that's not a threat to the recording industry.....

Plus honest reviews, people getting what they want, when they want it - wow again. The media strong hold is really losing control. They can't control the message, the merchandise, nor the content. What is their reason for being? No wonder they are freaked out.

Re: Re: Re: Secret dealings:

Re: Secret dealings:

If you feel that you can't do it in the full view of the public, then you are feeling shame.

The entertainment industry doesn't feel shame. They hide these agreements because they feel that the public is made up of filthy thieves who would object to their absolute right to demand new laws that benefit only themselves.

"Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but being a sane person, I tend to believe that the MPAA's and RIAA's of the world are doing what they genuinely feel is right for their constituents"

While I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
While I don't believe UFOs and aliens are studied in Area 51.
While I don't believe international banking corporations are behind a massive push for universal communism
While I don't believe vaccines give people autism/allow governments to control your thoughts/whatever.
While I don't believe chemtrails contain chemicals/biological agents purposely sprayed on the population by governments or other authorities.
While I don't believe President Obama isn't a US citizen.
While I don't believe the Moon Landing was done in a Hollywood studio.
While I don't believe HIV/AIDS was created by the CIA in a laboratory
I do believe that, if by "constituents" you mean the artists themselves, you couldn't be more wrong. The MPAA and the RIAA and their never ending expansion of copyright laws have not benefited artists in the slightest. Instead, they have only benefited themselves and an elite few big-wigs in Hollywood and the Recording Industry, not only through extra profits and bonuses to high ranking members such as Chris Dodd, but also by not having to update their redundant business models. In fact, the MPAA at least has been guilty of failing to protect the artists by sitting by silently and allowing dodgy Hollywood accounting to continue unchallenged.
The **AA's are only in it for themselves. They are legalized protection rackets, nothing more.

Here's another conspiracy theory for you...

I wouldn't be one bit surprized if Big Media have 15-20 of these "laws", "negotiations", "treaties", et al, national and international, sitting in a fat file somewhere, hoping 1 or 2 make it through.

And, no, they are NOT protecting creators. After Ruppert Murdoch made his infamous tweets, someone replied asking if Mr. Murdoch would send artists, directors, and screen writers some of those jobs and money their way.

I'm seeing more and more creators turn to the internet to make the money Big Media are not paying them. Louis CK is one. James Altucher on Techcrunch just posted how he self-published his second book, selling on Amazon. So, if you think of it that way, I could see how they might be worried.

Except that they are making sooooo much money without these laws, despite people using the internet, that it DOESN'T make sense.